Cited by 26Muscle activation and electromyography studiesNeuroscience and Neural EngineeringStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery

Improving signal reliability for on-line joint angle estimation from nerve cuff recordings of muscle afferents

Jensen, W., Sinkjaer, T., Sepulveda, F.·2002·IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering

Abstract

Closed-loop functional electrical stimulation (FES) applications depend on sensory feedback, thus, it is important to continuously investigate new methods to obtain reliable feedback signals. The objective of the present paper was to examine the feasibility of using an artificial neural network (ANN) to predict joint angle from whole nerve cuff recordings of muscle afferent activity within a physiological range of motion. Furthermore, we estimated how small changes in joint angle that can be detected from the nerve cuff recordings. Neural networks were tested with data obtained from ten acute rabbit experiments in simulated, on-line experiments. The electroneurograms (ENG) of the tibial and peroneal nerves were recorded during passive ankle joint rotation. To decrease the joint angle prediction error with new rabbit data, we attempted to pretune the nerve signals and re-trained the ANNs with the pretuned data. With these procedures we were able to compensate for interrabbit variability. On average the mean prediction errors were less than 2.0 degrees (a total excursion of 20 degrees) and we were able to predict joint angles from muscle afferent activity with accuracy close to the best-estimated angular resolution. The angular resolution was found to depend on the initial joint angle and the actual step size taken and we found that there was a low probability of detecting joint angle changes less than 1.5 degrees. We thus suggest that muscle afferent activity is applicable as…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tnsre.2002.802851

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jensen, W., Sinkjaer, T., & Sepulveda, F.
Affiliations
Aalborg University (DK)
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering
Published
2002-09
Volume
10
Issue
3
Pages
133-139
ISSN
  • 1534-4320 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-0210
OpenAlex
W2160065833
Cited by
26
References
2
Citations by year
2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
1.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • VBN Forskningsportal (Aalborg Universitet) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Muscle activation and electromyography studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Keywords
joint angle estimation, electroneurogram, artificial neural networks, sensory feedback, tibial nerve, peroneal nerve, angular resolution, signal reliability
MeSH terms
Animals, Ankle Joint, Electrodes, Implanted, Feedback, Female, Nerve Fibers, Peroneal Nerve, Quality Control, Rabbits, Rotation, Sensitivity and Specificity, Tibial Nerve, Reproducibility of Results, Neural Networks, Computer, Muscle, Skeletal

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review